United States v. Charleston Lyron Daughtry

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-11812 April 21, 2006
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-00185-CR-WS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLESTON LYRON DAUGHTRY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(April 21, 2006)
Before BIRCH and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and TRAGER*, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable David G. Trager, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New
York, sitting by designation.
This is Charleston Lyron Daughtry’s appeal from the sentence that was
imposed on him after he pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to
distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We will keep this opinion brief,
because it is unpublished, the parties are familiar with the facts and issues, and we
had a thorough discussion of the case with the attorneys at oral argument.
The district court did not err by employing the preponderance of the
evidence standard in determining the quantity of cocaine to attribute to Daughtry.
See United States v. Chau, 426 F.3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v.
Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005); see also United States v.
Barakat, 130 F.3d 1448, 1452 (11th Cir. 1997). As for the factual issues involving
the quantity of drugs to be attributed to Daughtry, the district court was in a far
better position than we are to resolve conflicts in the evidence and make
credibility choices. It heard live testimony not only from Agent Loftis, but also
from Daughtry himself. We cannot say that the district court’s resolution of
conflicts in that evidence, or its decision to credit the parts of the agent’s
testimony that it did, was clear error.
AFFIRMED.
2